What is the party’s formula for success? Is it mostly about personal charisma, or is it primarily based on ideology? Or is it perhaps a result of many different, Turkey-specific factors?
No single political party can stay in power for almost a decade without having made inroads into the hearts and minds of the people. Hence, a party with a charismatic leader at its helm would have pole position. Staying in this seafaring picture, a people’s party is often likened to a super-tanker: big and impressive but extremely difficult to maneuver and even more cumbersome to change course.
That said, a people’s party is well advised to have a party manifesto in place which allows for the representation of a wide range of viewpoints so that conceptual changes a few years into another four-year mandate can be reduced to a minimum.
The AK Party managed just that: coming to power with a far-reaching agenda that embraces diversity as opposed to uniformity.
What keeps the AK Party above the 40-percent mark?
A people’s party would aim at forming a one-party government if at all possible. In order to achieve this goal, obtaining no less than 40 percent of the total vote during a general election is standard. To garner enough votes, not only dyed-in-the-wool supporters of a particular political direction have to be convinced to continuously lend their support to that political party, but in almost all cases a certain percentage of swing voters, too.
Together with the fact that people’s parties appeal to the young and the old and usually have a very active youth section while defending the rights of pensioners, too, swing voters bring another element of diversity into the policy-making process. While party spin doctors will never risk alienating their core voters, beliefs addressing a certain number of issues appealing to all segments (and thus attracting 3-5 percent of the national swing vote potential) of society will help to have the party jump more easily over the above-mentioned 40-percent hurdle.
Yet winning an election or two in itself does not make a political party a true people’s party. What establishes a long-lasting relationship with a broad selection of society is steadfastness in accepting different views, albeit under one unifying roof. A people’s party is too big to just lobby for one particular interest. It cannot simply be pro-business or pro-trade unions as it will have members from both segments of society amongst its ranks, and most likely amongst its elected office holders, too.
In this regard, and after nearly a decade in power, Turkey’s AK Party has become a true people’s party. Its members are civil servants, entrepreneurs, journalists, students and pensioners. They are young and old. So is the party’s voter base. It is a mirror image of Turkish society, except for those who long for the past and apparently did not mind (or more accurately benefited from) endless years of either this or that form of unwanted tutelage and subsequently cast their votes for the political opposition.
The Erdoğan factor
As diversified as a people’s party has to be in its outlook, what it really needs is a personality with whom the vast majority of voters identify. Enter Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who most definitely spearheads the art of leadership. I am not saying that the AK Party would not have stayed in power without the current prime minister as its frontman, but written with all due respect expressed towards all other leading party members, it would have struggled to stay united and it would have struggled to ever reach the magic 50 percent vote mark. It would not have struggled because of a lack of leadership qualities found in other AK Party personalities, of which there are many, but rather exactly because of that: A large number of strong characters such as are assembled under the AK Party’s roof would all too easily fight for power amongst themselves instead of amongst the electorate. The AK Party needed Mr. Erdoğan to become prime minister to make sure that infighting was kept to a minimum. Some of those who currently challenge the prime minister for what they all too quickly label “authoritarianism” might think twice, as running a government and an entire country is more difficult than some would expect. Without a firm hand, the government would crumble.
Think Tony Blair and Helmut Kohl by means of comparison. Both were regarded as more approachable when compared with some of their predecessors, in particular Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Schmidt. Yet behind closed doors, both Blair and Kohl did just the same and they were most definitely in charge of almost everything and not necessarily known for being soft on dissenters. I agree that there is a fine line between demonstrating authority and turning authoritarian, but compared with fellow European leaders, Erdoğan is neither more nor less “over-the-top,” regardless of what the usual suspects, aka anti-government media organs, proclaim.
AK Party, electorate needed time to appreciate, manage change
The remarkable thing about the AK Party is that it not simply promised to run the economy differently but that it tackled some of the country’s most controversial issues, too. Often overlooked and coming back once again to my picture of a super-tanker and its captain, a country can be likened to a super-tanker, too, and not just a particular political party. Change needs time in Turkey and only now, after a fair number of years in charge, is both the party and, above all else, the electorate, ready and willing to go one step further almost every day at one step at a time.
Think revolutionizing Turkey’s primary and secondary education system by introducing the FATİH project. Think about (finally!) abolishing military drill-like public performances by schoolchildren in front of dignitaries come the annual May 19 ritual. Think about scrapping the twice weekly oath ceremony at schools, too. Then go into an even wider picture: putting former leading members of the armed forces on trial for allegedly aiming to topple the democratically elected government by undemocratic means. Consider Turkey becoming a partner for the free world instead of only visiting foreign countries to sign another military procurement deal.
All of the above and so many other reforms carried out under the AK Party would have been absolutely unthinkable 10 years ago, perhaps even five years ago. The AK Party knew that, so did the electorate.
What is missing is a viable alternative (i.e., not confusing opposition with obstruction) on the political front, as no democracy allows for the same party to govern for decades on end -- ideally, another people’s party, albeit with a more center-left-oriented political outlook. Once ready, Turkey’s transition to a permanently full-fledged civilian democracy will have been completed for good! Think of other European democracies -- 10 or 12 years of one party, then the opposition takes over for a similar period of time. Then it’s back to the first party, and so on and so forth. The country remains stable, democracy remains stable and civil society remains at its core. Actually, stable does not refer to a status quo, as democracy needs constant upgrading. Until then, it seems that the current Turkish government might very well form the next one, too. Turkey’s electorate will decide and no one else.
